SSHE... Here's the deal (Long Post)

[MicroBob]

[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way. Out of every 100 hands in a full game, you will fold about 80-85% of them automatically.

Depending on the game texture, of the 25% of the pots that you are involved in you will probably fold about 30-40% of those relatively painlessly on the flop.

Of the remaining 15 hands or so, most of them will be pretty straight forward, lets say 75% of them (depending on game texture. So realistically, you get a chance to think about making an "expert" play about 5-7% of the time. Factor in some of these plays will be "expert" folds, and you see that it is a pretty small percentage of your hands where things get reaaly complicated.

Which is not to say that SSH only applies to a small percentage of hands, concepts like hand protection, and calling liberally in large pots are important. But my point is that a large percentage of the time, solid straightforward, fundamental play is what you will be using.

[/ QUOTE ]


Something about this post bothered me.
Basically, I think many players underestimate the frequency at which one is departing from 'normal straight-forward' play to apply something that is possibly better EV.


Many of the 'straight-forward' players make tons of mistakes...in fact, sometimes on EVERY round.


Lots of players who don't get TOO out of line would both the following simple situation:
UTG raises,
You are UTG+1 with ATo or AJo and cold-call (generally a mistake)


Here's another situation that I was just reading through (and it reminded me of this post)...

semi-typical game (maybe 15/30)
UTG raises, you have KhQh and cold-call....SB also calls.

3 players see a flop of 852 with 2 hearts.

SB checks, UTG bets, your correct play is probably to raise.

How many 'generally straight-forward' players 3-bet this pre-flop? (a handful I would say...although probably not many).
How many of them fail to raise this flop? (many many of them I believe).

I think that a good TAG player is deviating from straight-forward or weak-tight play more often than many players think.

There are just so many opportunities out there for deeper-level thinking of the SSHE or Weighing The Odds variety where you going beyond straight-forward play and thinking in terms of 'is betting for value or going for a check-raise better EV?' or 'do i just check-fold this crappy river....or is there value in attempting a bluff here?'.

Stuff like that happens ALL the time as I am learning more and more (especially from my time at the 6-max tables).

And once you start to get the hang of some of that +EV stuff from SSHE and it becomes kind of routine...then it can go even deeper than that.

[flair1239]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Think of it this way. Out of every 100 hands in a full game, you will fold about 80-85% of them automatically.

Depending on the game texture, of the 25% of the pots that you are involved in you will probably fold about 30-40% of those relatively painlessly on the flop.

Of the remaining 15 hands or so, most of them will be pretty straight forward, lets say 75% of them (depending on game texture. So realistically, you get a chance to think about making an "expert" play about 5-7% of the time. Factor in some of these plays will be "expert" folds, and you see that it is a pretty small percentage of your hands where things get reaaly complicated.

Which is not to say that SSH only applies to a small percentage of hands, concepts like hand protection, and calling liberally in large pots are important. But my point is that a large percentage of the time, solid straightforward, fundamental play is what you will be using.

[/ QUOTE ]


Something about this post bothered me.
Basically, I think many players underestimate the frequency at which one is departing from 'normal straight-forward' play to apply something that is possibly better EV.


Many of the 'straight-forward' players make tons of mistakes...in fact, sometimes on EVERY round.


Lots of players who don't get TOO out of line would both the following simple situation:
UTG raises,
You are UTG+1 with ATo or AJo and cold-call (generally a mistake)


Here's another situation that I was just reading through (and it reminded me of this post)...

semi-typical game (maybe 15/30)
UTG raises, you have KhQh and cold-call....SB also calls.

3 players see a flop of 852 with 2 hearts.

SB checks, UTG bets, your correct play is probably to raise.

How many 'generally straight-forward' players 3-bet this pre-flop? (a handful I would say...although probably not many).
How many of them fail to raise this flop? (many many of them I believe).

I think that a good TAG player is deviating from straight-forward or weak-tight play more often than many players think.

There are just so many opportunities out there for deeper-level thinking of the SSHE or Weighing The Odds variety where you going beyond straight-forward play and thinking in terms of 'is betting for value or going for a check-raise better EV?' or 'do i just check-fold this crappy river....or is there value in attempting a bluff here?'.

Stuff like that happens ALL the time as I am learning more and more (especially from my time at the 6-max tables).

And once you start to get the hang of some of that +EV stuff from SSHE and it becomes kind of routine...then it can go even deeper than that.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bob,

Your first example is an obvious error that a player with a grasp of solid fundamentals would never make. It would never occur to me to CC a UTG raise with ATo or AJo. If I really had zero respect for the PFR I would three-bet.

Your second example, while pre-flop is open to discussion, I have a hard time believing that a player with a solid grasp of fundamental concepts, would not raise this flop... unless there were some sort of specfic reads on the players involved.

Maybe it is the use of the term "straight forward" that bothered you. Maybe your mind would be soothed more if you noted in my OP I said "Solid straightforward, fundamental play". In my opinion folding the first hand, and raising the 2nd flop are examples of good straightforward fundamental play.